DOCSLIB.ORG

Fairfax County Shoreline Management Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

W&M ScholarWorks Reports 3-2015 Fairfax County Shoreline Management Plan C. Scott Hardaway Jr. Virginia Institute of Marine Science Donna A. Milligan Virginia Institute of Marine Science Christine A. Wilcox Virginia Institute of Marine Science Marcia Berman Virginia Institute of Marine Science Tamia Rudnicky Virginia Institute of Marine Science See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/reports Part of the Environmental Monitoring Commons, Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Recommended Citation Hardaway, C., Milligan, D. A., Wilcox, C. A., Berman, M., Rudnicky, T., Nunez, K., & Killeen, S. (2015) Fairfax County Shoreline Management Plan. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, William & Mary. https://doi.org/ 10.21220/V5RM72 This Report is brought to you for free and open access by W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Reports by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Authors C. Scott Hardaway Jr., Donna A. Milligan, Christine A. Wilcox, Marcia Berman, Tamia Rudnicky, Karinna Nunez, and Sharon Killeen This report is available at W&M ScholarWorks: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/reports/589 Fairfax County Shoreline Management Plan Prepared for Fairfax County and Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program Virginia Institute of Marine Science College of William & Mary Gloucester Point, Virginia March 2015 Fairfax County Shoreline Management Plan Prepared for Fairfax County and Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program Shoreline Studies Program Center for Coastal Resources Management C. Scott Hardaway, Jr. Marcia Berman Donna A. Milligan Tamia Rudnicky Christine A. Wilcox Karinna Nunez Sharon Killeen Virginia Institute of Marine Science College of William & Mary Gloucester Point, Virginia This project was funded by the Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program at the Department of Environmental Quality through Grant #NA13NOS4190135 of the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of theU.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, or any of its subagencies. March 2015 Fairfax County Table of Contents 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 2 Coastal Setting ................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Geology/Geomorphology ............................................................................................. 3 2.1.1 Geology ............................................................................................................... 3 2.1.2 Shore Morphology ............................................................................................... 3 2.2 Coastal Hydrodynamics ............................................................................................... 8 2.2.1 Wave Climate ..................................................................................................... 8 2.2.2 Sea-Level Rise .................................................................................................... 9 2.2.3 Shore Erosion .....................................................................................................10 3 Shoreline Best Management Practices ...............................................................................11 3.1 Implications of Traditional Erosion Control Treatments ................................................11 3.2 Shoreline Best Management Practices – The Living Shoreline Alternative ...................11 3.3 Non-Structural Design Considerations .........................................................................12 3.4 Structural Design Considerations .................................................................................14 3.4.1 Sills .....................................................................................................................14 3.4.2 Breakwaters ........................................................................................................15 4 Methods .............................................................................................................................17 4.1 Shore Status Assessment ...........................................................................................17 4.2 Geospatial Shoreline Management Model ..................................................................17 5 Shoreline Management for Fairfax County ........................................................................ 20 5.1 Shoreline Management Model (SMM) Results ........................................................... 20 5.2 Shore Segments of Concern /Interest ......................................................................... 22 5.2.1 (Area of Interest#1) Mason Neck Headland Breakwater System ......................... 22 5.2.2 (Area of Interest #2) Turnout on GWP Low Sill ................................................... 22 5.2.3 (Area of Interest#3) Turn out on GWP Medium Sill...............................................23 6 Summary and Links to Additional Resources ..................................................................... 24 7 References .........................................................................................................................25 Appendix 1: Shoreline Management Model Graphic .................................................................27 Appendix 2: Glossary of Shoreline Best Management Practices ............................................... 29 Appendix 3: Guidance for Structural Design and Construction in Fairfax County .......................31 Shoreline Management Plan List of Figures Figure 1-1. Location of Fairfax County within the Chesapeake Bay estuarine system. The location of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration tide gage is shown. ...........................................................................................................1 Figure 2-1. Geology of Fairfax County (Mixon et al., 1989). ................................................................3 Figure 2-2. Topographic sheet of Reach 1 in Fairfax County. ............................................................. 4 Figure 2-3. Topographic sheet of Reach 2 in Fairfax County. ............................................................. 4 Figure 2-4. Topographic sheet of Reach 3 in Fairfax County. .............................................................. 4 Figure 2-5. Broad, fringing tidal fresh water marshes along Belmont Bay. ........................................ 4 Figure 2-6. Shore protection along eroding banks of Belmont Bay. ....................................................5 Figure 2-7. Eroding banks along Belmont Bay. ..................................................................................5 Figure 2-8. Gabion structures that are acting as breakwaters along Mason Neck State Park. From Bing Maps. .............................................................................................................5 Figure 2-9. One attached and three detached breakwaters along Mason Neck north of High Point. As the sandy bank erodes, the breakwaters likely will become attached. From Bing Maps. ............................................................................................ 6 Figure 2-10. Broad, shallow marsh along the Potomac River between High Point and Hallowing Point. ............................................................................................................. 6 Figure 2-11. The shorelines along this section of shoreline in Reach 2 along the Potomac River has been graded and protected at the base. ................................................................... 6 Figure 2-12. Along the Gunston Cove shoreline, the high upland bank is mostly in a natural state and is erosional. ..................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2-13. Development and shore protection along Dogue Creek. ..................................................7 Figure 2-14. Ferry Point differs from other points in Fairfax in that it is developed and protected with a large revetment. ...................................................................................7 Figure 2-15. The high bank at Mount Vernon has been graded and the shoreline protected with a stone block seawall. ..............................................................................................7 Figure 2-16. The fixed entrance to Little Hunting Creek. ......................................................................7 Figure 2-17. The George Washington Memorial Parkway runs along the shoreline in Reach 3. ............ 8 Figure 2-18. Development along Reach 3. .......................................................................................... 8 Figure 2-19. Dyke Marsh with wooded upland and occasional treed islands. ....................................... 8 Figure 2-20. Wave climate map for the Potomac River (from Basco and Shin, 1993). .......................... 9 Fairfax County Figure 3-1. One example of forest management. The edge of the bank is kept free of tree and shrub growth to reduce bank loss from tree fall. ......................................................12
Recommended publications
  • Nomination Form

    Nomination Form

    NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in National Register Bulletin, How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. If any item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. 1. Name of Property Historic name: Woodlawn Cultural Landscape Historic District Other names/site number: DHR File No.: 029-5181 Name of related multiple property listing: N/A (Enter "N/A" if property is not part of a multiple property listing ____________________________________________________________________________ 2. Location Street & number: Bounded by Old Mill Rd, Mt Vernon Memorial Hwy, Fort Belvoir, and Dogue Creek City or town: Alexandria State: VA County: Fairfax Not For Publication: N/A Vicinity: X ____________________________________________________________________________ 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this X nomination ___ request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional
  • Native Vascular Flora of the City of Alexandria, Virginia

    Native Vascular Flora of the City of Alexandria, Virginia

    Native Vascular Flora City of Alexandria, Virginia Photo by Gary P. Fleming December 2015 Native Vascular Flora of the City of Alexandria, Virginia December 2015 By Roderick H. Simmons City of Alexandria Department of Recreation, Parks, and Cultural Activities, Natural Resources Division 2900-A Business Center Drive Alexandria, Virginia 22314 [email protected] Suggested citation: Simmons, R.H. 2015. Native vascular flora of the City of Alexandria, Virginia. City of Alexandria Department of Recreation, Parks, and Cultural Activities, Alexandria, Virginia. 104 pp. Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 2 Climate ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Geology and Soils .................................................................................................................... 3 History of Botanical Studies in Alexandria .............................................................................. 5 Methods ............................................................................................................................................ 7 Results and Discussion ....................................................................................................................
  • A Direct Route to George Washington's Home

    A Direct Route to George Washington's Home

    Office of Historic Alexandria City of Alexandria, Virginia Out of the Attic A direct route to George Washington’s home Alexandria Times, February 12, 2015 Image: Great Hunting Creek. Photo, Office of Historic Alexandria. his week, we continue our discussion of the man-made changes to Great Hunting Creek T and Cameron Run. With the construction of the Richmond Highway causeway across the creek in 1809 and then the building of a streetcar rail bridge across the wide mouth of the waterway at the turn of the 20th century, impediments to proper drainage were well in place by 1900. But within 30 years, a major new construction project would replace the elevated rail bridge with a permanent land form, further restricting the ebb and flow of natural currents and drainage flow far upstream. At the time the streetcar rail bridge was under construction, an Alexandria business group first proposed a new roadway to link the nation’s capital with the tourist haven, Mount Vernon, 15 miles away. As projected, the new highway would cross the Potomac River near Arlington House, as well as at Great Hunting Creek on suspension bridges high above the waterways, named the “Memorial Bridges” in honor of the Civil War dead and to reflect the reunification of the Union and Confederate states. In the rural wilderness of Fairfax County, south of Alexandria, the highway would include 13 rest areas, each featuring a large pavilion reflecting one of the original colonies, with landscaping, architecture and exhibits appropriate to the earliest states. By the late 1920s, Congress finally authorized construction of the George Washington Memorial Parkway, in honor of the upcoming 200th birthday of the nation’s first president in 1932 as promoted by Alexandria businessmen, albeit without the more lavish plans espoused nearly three decades earlier.
  • Department of Public Works and Environmental Services Working for You!

    Department of Public Works and Environmental Services Working for You!

    American Council of Engineering Companies of Metropolitan Washington Water & Wastewater Business Opportunities Networking Luncheon Presented by Matthew Doyle, Branch Chief, Wastewater Design and Construction Division Department of Public Works and Environmental Services Working for You! A Fairfax County, VA, publication August 20, 2019 Introduction • Matt Doyle, PE, CCM • Working as a Civil Engineer at Fairfax County, DPWES • BSCE West Virginia University • MSCE Johns Hopkins University • 25 years in the industry (Mid‐Atlantic Only) • Adjunct Hydraulics Professor at GMU • Director GMU‐EFID (Student Organization) Presentation Objectives • Overview of Fairfax County Wastewater Infrastructure • Overview of Fairfax County Wastewater Organization (Staff) • Snapshot of our Current Projects • New Opportunities To work with DPWES • Use of Technologies and Trends • Helpful Hyperlinks Overview of Fairfax County Wastewater Infrastructure • Wastewater Collection System • 3,400 Miles of Sanitary Sewer (Average Age 60 years old) • 61 Pumping Stations (flow ranges are from 25 GPM to 25 MGD) • 90 Flow Meters (Mostly billing meters) • 135 Grinder pumps • Wastewater Treatment Plant • 1 Wastewater Treatment Plant • Noman M. Cole Pollution Control Plant, Lorton • 67 MGD • Laboratory • Reclaimed Water Reuse System • 6.6 MGD • 2 Pump Stations • 0.750 MG Storage Tank • Level 1 Compliance • Convanta, Golf Course and Ball Fields Overview of Fairfax County Wastewater Organization • Wastewater Management Program (Three Areas) – Planning & Monitoring: • Financial,
  • Belle Haven, Dogue Creek and Four Mile Run

    Belle Haven, Dogue Creek and Four Mile Run

    1 Introduction to Watersheds A watershed is an area of land that drains all of its water to a specific lake or river. As rainwater and melting snow run downhill, they carry sediment and other materials into our streams, lakes, wetlands and groundwater. The boundary of a watershed is defined by the watershed divide, which is the ridge of highest elevation surrounding a given stream or network of streams. A drop of rainwater falling outside of this boundary will enter a different watershed and will flow to a different body of water. Figure 1-1: Diagram of a watershed Streams and rivers may flow through many different types of land use in their paths to the ocean. In the above illustration from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, water flows from agricultural lands to residential areas to industrial zones as it moves downstream. Each land use presents unique impacts and challenges on water quality. The size of a watershed can be subjective; it depends on the scale that is being considered. The image to the left depicts the extent of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, "the big picture" that is linked to our local concerns. This watershed covers 64,000 square miles and crosses into six states: New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia, Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia. One of the watersheds that comprise the Chesapeake Bay watershed is the Potomac River watershed. Fairfax County, as shown on the map, occupies approximately 400 square miles of the Potomac River watershed. This area contains 30 smaller watersheds. Think of watersheds as being "nested" within each successively larger one.
  • Brook Trout Outcome Management Strategy

    Brook Trout Outcome Management Strategy

    Brook Trout Outcome Management Strategy Introduction Brook Trout symbolize healthy waters because they rely on clean, cold stream habitat and are sensitive to rising stream temperatures, thereby serving as an aquatic version of a “canary in a coal mine”. Brook Trout are also highly prized by recreational anglers and have been designated as the state fish in many eastern states. They are an essential part of the headwater stream ecosystem, an important part of the upper watershed’s natural heritage and a valuable recreational resource. Land trusts in West Virginia, New York and Virginia have found that the possibility of restoring Brook Trout to local streams can act as a motivator for private landowners to take conservation actions, whether it is installing a fence that will exclude livestock from a waterway or putting their land under a conservation easement. The decline of Brook Trout serves as a warning about the health of local waterways and the lands draining to them. More than a century of declining Brook Trout populations has led to lost economic revenue and recreational fishing opportunities in the Bay’s headwaters. Chesapeake Bay Management Strategy: Brook Trout March 16, 2015 - DRAFT I. Goal, Outcome and Baseline This management strategy identifies approaches for achieving the following goal and outcome: Vital Habitats Goal: Restore, enhance and protect a network of land and water habitats to support fish and wildlife, and to afford other public benefits, including water quality, recreational uses and scenic value across the watershed. Brook Trout Outcome: Restore and sustain naturally reproducing Brook Trout populations in Chesapeake Bay headwater streams, with an eight percent increase in occupied habitat by 2025.
  • Corridor Analysis for the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail in Northern Virginia

    Corridor Analysis for the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail in Northern Virginia

    Corridor Analysis For The Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail In Northern Virginia June 2011 Acknowledgements The Northern Virginia Regional Commission (NVRC) wishes to acknowledge the following individuals for their contributions to this report: Don Briggs, Superintendent of the Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail for the National Park Service; Liz Cronauer, Fairfax County Park Authority; Mike DePue, Prince William Park Authority; Bill Ference, City of Leesburg Park Director; Yon Lambert, City of Alexandria Department of Transportation; Ursula Lemanski, Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program for the National Park Service; Mark Novak, Loudoun County Park Authority; Patti Pakkala, Prince William County Park Authority; Kate Rudacille, Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority; Jennifer Wampler, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation; and Greg Weiler, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The report is an NVRC staff product, supported with funds provided through a cooperative agreement with the National Capital Region National Park Service. Any assessments, conclusions, or recommendations contained in this report represent the results of the NVRC staff’s technical investigation and do not represent policy positions of the Northern Virginia Regional Commission unless so stated in an adopted resolution of said Commission. The views expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the jurisdictions, the National Park Service, or any of its sub agencies. Funding for this report was through a cooperative agreement with The National Park Service Report prepared by: Debbie Spiliotopoulos, Senior Environmental Planner Northern Virginia Regional Commission with assistance from Samantha Kinzer, Environmental Planner The Northern Virginia Regional Commission 3060 Williams Drive, Suite 510 Fairfax, VA 22031 703.642.0700 www.novaregion.org Page 2 Northern Virginia Regional Commission As of May 2011 Chairman Hon.
  • National Register of Historic Places Registration Form

    National Register of Historic Places Registration Form

    NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NOV 0 ·~ 2013 National Register of Historic Places NAT. Re018TiR OF HISTORIC PlACES Registration Form NATIONAL PARK SERVICE This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in National Register Bulletin, How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. If any item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional certification comments, entries, and narrative items on continuation sheets if needed (NPS Form 10-900a). 1. Name of Property historic name George Washington Birthplace National Monument other names/site number Wakefield. Popes Creek Plantation , VDHR File #096-0026 2. Location 1732 Popes Creek Road not for publication street & number L-----' city or town Colonial Beach ~ vicinity state Vir inia code VA county Westmoreland code _ _;_:19'--=-3- zip code -"'2=2:....;.4"""43.;;...._ ___ 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this _!__nomination_ request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property .K._ meets __ does not meet the National Register Criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant at the following level(s) of significance: x_ b state ' Ide "x n J.VIA.rVI In my opinion, the property .x..._ meets_ does not meet the National Register criteria.
  • Board Agenda Item July 30, 2019 ACTION

    Board Agenda Item July 30, 2019 ACTION

    Board Agenda Item July 30, 2019 ACTION - 8 Endorsement of Design Plans for the Richmond Highway Corridor Improvements Project from Jeff Todd Way to Sherwood Hall Lane (Lee and Mount Vernon Districts) ISSUE: Board endorsement of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Design Public Hearing plans for the 3.1-mile Richmond Highway Corridor Improvements Project between Jeff Todd Way/Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and Sherwood Hall Lane. The purpose of the project is to increase capacity, safety, and mobility for all users. Improvements include widening Richmond Highway from four to six lanes; reserving the median for the future Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system; replacing structures over Dogue Creek, Little Hunting Creek, and the North Fork of Dogue Creek; intersection improvements; sidewalks; and two-way cycle tracks on both sides of the road. RECOMMENDATION: The County Executive recommends that the Board endorse the design plans for the Richmond Highway Corridor Improvements project administered by VDOT as generally presented at the March 26, 2019, Design Public Hearing and authorize the Director of FCDOT to transmit the Board’s endorsement to VDOT (Attachment I). TIMING: The Board should take action on this matter on July 30, 2019, to allow VDOT to proceed with final design plans and enter the Right-of-Way (ROW) phase in late 2019 to keep the project on schedule. BACKGROUND: In 1994, the Virginia General Assembly directed VDOT to perform a centerline design study of the 27-mile Route 1 corridor between the Stafford County line and the Capital Beltway. There was a continuation of the Centerline Study in 1996 and 1998.
  • 2019 Trout Program Maps

    2019 Trout Program Maps

    SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2018 FOUR DOLLARS Inside: 2019 Trout Program Maps SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2018 Contents 5 How Sweet Sweet Sweet It Is! By Mike Roberts With support from the Ward Burton Wildlife Foundation, volunteers, and business partners, a citizen science project aims to help a magnificent songbird in the Roanoke River basin. 10 Hunting: A Foundation For Life By Curtis J. Badger A childhood spent afield gives the author reason to reflect upon a simpler time, one that deeply shaped his values. 14 Women Afield: Finally By John Shtogren There are many reasons to cheer the trend of women’s interest in hunting and fishing, and the outdoors industry takes note. 20 What’s Up With Cobia? By Ken Perrotte Virginia is taking a lead in sound management of this gamefish through multi-state coordination, tagging efforts, and citation data. 24 For The Love Of Snakes By David Hart Snakes are given a bad rap, but a little knowledge and the right support group can help you overcome your fears. 28 The Evolution Of Cute By Jason Davis Nature has endowed young wildlife with a number of strategies for survival, cuteness being one of them. 32 2019 Trout Program Maps By Jay Kapalczynski Fisheries biologists share the latest trout stocking locations. 38 AFIELD AND AFLOAT 41 A Walk in the Woods • 42 Off the Leash 43 Photo Tips • 45 On the Water • 46 Dining In Cover: A female prothonotary warbler brings caterpillars to her young. See page 5. ©Mike Roberts Left: A handsome white-tailed buck pauses while feeding along a fence line.
  • Little Hunting Creek Bridge HAER No. VA-42D

    Little Hunting Creek Bridge HAER No. VA-42D

    Mount Vernon Memorial Highway: Little Hunting Creek Bridge HAER No. VA-42D Carries the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway over Little Hunting Creek along the Potomac, 8.6 miles south of 1-95 Mount Vernon Vicinity Fairfax County Virginia 3\ <*-> PHOTOGRAPHS WRITTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA Historic American Engineering Recoi National Park Service Department of the Interior Washington, DC 20013-7127 HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD MOUNT VERNON MEMORIAL HIGHWAY: LITTLE HUNTING CREEK BRIDGE b~$ HAER No. VA-42D Location: Carrying the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway across Little Hunting Creek at the Potomac, 8.6 miles south of 1-95 and 1.1 miles north of Mount Vernon in Fairfax County, Virginia, UTM: 18/319650/4286750 Quad.: Mount Vernon Date of Construction: Designed 1929, Completed 1932 Architect: Gilmore D. Clarke Engineer: E.J. Budge, Resident Engineer F.M. DeWaters, Assistant Resident Engineer J.V. McNary, Senior Engineer, U.S. Bureau of Public Roads Contractor: Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corporation, New York, New York Present Owner George Washington Memorial Parkway National Park Service Department of the Interior Present Use: Vehicular bridge Significance: This parkway bridge is significant because it typifies the style of bridges which were designed for this new type of roadway. This bridge was designed to harmonize with the landscape by incorporating the natural shape of the arch, facing the bridge with native stone, and using careful attention regarding the plantings and landscape surroundin; the bridge. Historian: Elizabeth M. Nolin, 1988 LITTLE HUNTING CREEK BRIDGE HAER Mo. VA-42D (page 2) The final bridge on the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway (see HAER Mo.
  • WRRC Vwc 201002.Pdf (2.131Mb)

    WRRC Vwc 201002.Pdf (2.131Mb)

    Virginia Water Resources Research Center Blacksburg, Virginia February 2010 (No. 52) Animal tracks beside a small stream in Montgomery County, Va., February 7, 2010. For a review of 2009 in water photos, see the Water Status Report section. IN THIS ISSUE Editor’s Comment: Virginia Water Radio 2 At the Water Center 32 Teaching Water 2 USGS/NIWR Competitive Grants Program 32 Virginia’s Infrastructure Gets Graded by the For the Record: Groundwater 33 American Society of Civil Engineers 3 Groundwater Photo Essay; Limestone Lagoons Water Status Report 8 in the Dominican Republic 36 In and Out of the News 14 Index to Previous Water Centrals 37 Va. Govt. Water Issues Overview 22 You Get the Last Word 40 Notices 26 2 Editor’s Comment Introducing Virginia Water Radio By Alan Raflo, Virginia Water Central Editor Here’s a history question. What common everyday item owes it origin—in part at least—to the following men, all active from the mid-1800s to the early 1900s: James Maxwell, Heinrich Hertz, Nikola Tesla, Alexander Popov, and Guglielmo Marconi? All of these men, along with other scientists and engineers, contributed to the invention or development of the radio. From Robert Peary’s 1909 message upon reaching the North Pole, to the World War II messages from Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, to the daily talk shows that enliven and influence politics and culture in 2010, radio has been an indispensible part of modern communications. The Virginia Water Resources Research Center is trying to use this old, reliable technology—matched with some 21st Century enhancements—to give Virginia citizens another way to stay informed about our state’s water resources.